And there is a reason why the major creation organizations are holding his work at an arm's length as well: they are sinking great amounts of money into trying to prove that radiometric dating procedures are fatally flawed. According to what Barry is seeing, however, they are not basically flawed at all: there is a very good reason why such old dates keep appearing in the test results. The rate of decay of radioactive elements is directly related to the speed of light. When the speed of light was higher, decay rates were faster, and the long ages would be expected to show up. As the speed of light slowed down, so the radioactive decay rates slowed down.
By assuming today's rate of decay has been uniform, the earth and universe look extremely old. Thus, the evolutionists are happy with the time that gives for evolution and the creationists are looking for flaws in the methods used for testing for dates. But if the rates of decay for the different elements have not been the same through time, then that throws both groups off! Here was an "atomic clock" which ran according to atomic processes and, possibly, a different "dynamical" clock, the one we use everyday, which is governed by gravity - the rotation and revolution rates of the earth and moon. Could it be that these two "clocks" were not measuring time the same way? A data analysis suggested this was indeed happening. Tom Van Flandern, with a Ph.D. from Yale in astronomy, specializing in celestial mechanics, and for twenty years (1963-1983) Research Astronomer and Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C., released the results of some tests showing that the rate of ticking of the atomic clock was measurably slowing down when compared with the "dynamical clock." [9] (Tom Van Flandern was terminated from his work with that institution shortly thereafter, although his work carries a 1984 publication date.)
In recognizing this verified difference between the two different "clocks," it is important to realize that the entire dating system recognized by geology and science in general, saying that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe somewhere around ten billion years older than that, might be thrown into total disarray. The standard science models cannot deal with that. The standard creation models cannot, at this point, deal with the fact that radiometric dating may be, for the most part, telling the truth on the atomic clock. And, meanwhile, the Hubble spacecraft keeps sending back data which keep slipping into Barry Setterfield's model as though they actually belonged there.
* * *
Is everyone sufficiently confused?
How about blood is congealed light? Note that Jesus's GLORIFIED body, which he referred to as flesh and bone, evidently didn't contain blood. (Flesh and bone and light? Is this our glorified state?)
How about the ether has been progressively permeated with particles which light has to "fight" its way through. In between particles light resumes its original velocity, but it slows down dramatically when impacting and fighting its way through these particles, which have increased their population density of the ether from zero to ubiquitous over the last 6000 years. I'm not going to track this one down at the moment, but it is a scientific hypothesis.
How do we learn?
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-inductive-and-deductive-reasoning.htm
Inductive and deductive reasoning are both approaches that can be used to evaluate inferences. Deductive reasoning involves starting out with a theory or general statement, then moving towards a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, takes a series of specific observations and tries to expand them into a more general theory. Each approach is very different, and it is important to be aware that both inductive and deductive reasoning can end up with false results, especially if the initial premise of the reasoning is false, in which case the results are said to be “unsound.”
Then there is the gestalt, the artist's act of perception of the whole being more than the sum of its deductive/inductive parts.
Here are two very famous Salvador Dali paintings. I'm not sure what it is, his understanding of time is a little different than ours. And his crucifixion scene ... which most will condemn as sacrilegious because it is outside of their perceptual comfort zone, is truly remarkable. The cross is a 4th dimensional hypercube penetrating 3 dimensional space; it is what we see of this 4th dimensional object. If confused, GOOGLE flatland for the story of 3d beings trying to communicate with 2 d beings. Dali painted this in the 30's; it is a remarkable exhibition of his mathematical understanding of math that didn't exist at the time.
We do know there is AT LEAST one more dimension, the spiritual, don't we?
Most of us are familiar with these rather dreary, imperfect and vastly overrated methods. How about revelation, God's direct communication to man as to Noah, Abraham, Moses and all of the prophets? How about inspiration, the communication from the revelated to his fellow man?
By now everyone's mind should be as messed up as mine, so I'll close in the hope and expectation of someday seeing through the glass clearly in the full brilliance of God's holy light.
MAranatha,
Bob
"Bob Anderson - Speed of Light"
Wonderful post, Bob. I keep dipping my toes into the quantum world but feel woefully stupid in trying to understand it. Our Majestic Father God has the whole thing in His Hands and it takes my breath away at just how BRILLIANT He is. Everything - down to the last nano whatever, has been exquisitely planned and executed - down to the minutest detail. So that one day - we thicko mortals will be able to grasp it. Nothing is random.
If light speed was faster in previous times, it would explain the life spans of Noah, Abraham, Methuselah etc., being that much longer than life expectancy today. I try to understand it by thinking of watching a film in slow motion.... or speeded up. We can observe the same thing at different speeds. We humans have a speed that makes sense to us but that doesn't mean our speed is a constant - or that it makes sense outside of our space time continuum. I hope this makes sense to you. If you can think of a better metaphor, I'd be grateful. But - gosh - isn't it all so utterly THRILLING?
As I said in a previous post - can you imagine the disciples and all biblical elders of yore, trying to get to grips with all this stuff??
My head hurts. Haha
Your sister in Christ
Fay